Evolution - Real or Not?Evolution is in so many ways taking over beliefs. I don't...

Evolution is in so many ways taking over beliefs. I don't actually agree with it... I'm a creationist/Chrisian and don't believe in it at all. Wondering what you think about this subject - is it real or is it not?

Evolution is real. And I don't think that it's incompatible with faith. It's only incompatible with believing that the Bible is meant as a scientific textbook. But that is not (to me) what the Bible is supposed to be. There's no reason that evolution can't be part of God's way of creation, in my opinion.

Evolution is indisputable, based not only on a fossil record we can see, but also on well-documented studies of evolution in our own time. One wonderful book about this is The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, by Jonathan Weiner. He and a partner were able to trace the evolution of finch beaks on an isolated island, demonstrating adaptation and natural selection over a series of climate changes on the island.

Evolution, in fact, is not a matter of belief at all, but of evidence and logic. There is no basis for saying that evolution is taking over belief because there is no requirement to choose between them. As the first response notes, they are not necessarily incompatible, and in fact, the more I learn about the wonders the world as explained by science, the stronger my belief is in a higher power.

Are you saying that we should combine the Bible with the facts of evolution, because that's not the way I see it.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there.

Also, we are told that God created the world that was already mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. Trees weren't just little seeds or seedlings, but the earth was made mature. This meant that the earth could have seemed billions of years old, but was only just created. So it could seem that the earth is billions of years old, but is only a few thousand.

I think that people have the right to believe what they want spiritually, and you can look at religion as a metaphor rather than an absolute scientific truth. Science is not necessarily set in stone. Science is about proof. As long as you can prove something it is true, but until then it is a theory and it can be disproven.

If you view the fossil record, you will see the evidence of how living things of today, had "ancestors" that appeared different. However, due to years of natural selection and an ever-changing environment, life evolved. Those with the best traits for that environment survived and others perished, resulting in new species over eons of time. The DNA evidence, comparative anatomy and embryology, the fossil record all provide indisputable proof that life on Earth was and is continually changing.

It seems as if you has already made up your mind. Evolution (i.e. the development of different species) by natural selection has withstood more than 150 years of rigorous scrutiny by all of the scientific disciplines mentioned above. It is a theory that you can take to the bank, and the broad outlines of the theory are are essentially demonstrable fact. As for the issue raised in Post #4, if your faith, in your mind, prohibits you from embracing the findings of science, then so be it. But other people don't have to see it that way.

I believe in evolution. How else(logically) can you explain our existence? We have a startling physical resemblance with monkeys and Chimps. We have evolved from these creatures to establish ourselves as the most intelligent and daring life form on Earth till date. This is what science teaches.

You talk about natural selection, yet natural selection is only
changes within a species. Natural selection doesn't bring about new
species. It is only responsible for changes within a species.

Why can't extended periods of time allow a multitude of
accumulated changes in an isolated gene pool to produce such a
significant divergence from the original characteristics that it
would be unable to reproduce with its original species?

Why can't a species change indefinitely until it is no longer
able to reproduce with the original species?

Are you saying that we should combine the Bible with the facts
of evolution, because that's not the way I see it.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven
days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate
from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there.

Also, we are told that God created the world that was already
mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. Trees
weren't just little seeds or seedlings, but the earth was made
mature. This meant that the earth could have seemed billions of
years old, but was only just created. So it could seem that the
earth is billions of years old, but is only a few thousand.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in
seven days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans
seperate from animals - the Bible makes the distinction
there. Also, we are told that God created the world that
was already mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as
children. - Luigi

And if you want to believe that then you have the freedom of
religion and can believe it. But, scientifically speaking, it is in
no sense real, true or accurate. Creationist attempts to deny
scientific evidence in order to preserve literal Biblical accuracy
are futile. It can't be done. It is scientifically provable
that

Adam and Eve never existed

There was no global flood

Humans are animals and evolved.

It doesn't matter what you 'believe'. What matters is, 'what
does the evidence show us?' And the evidence very clearly shows us
that the Bible is not a literally accurate scientific book.

I don't believe in evolution; however, I agree that each individual must delve into the topic and make their own decision based on what they find. Another must respect any free will decision another individual makes. I hearken back to pastor John MacArthur's statement that evolutionary theory is summed up as this... (paraphrased)

"Nothing x No one = everything."

Doesn't seem logical to me.

I saw a program the other day called Bird Tales on PBS Boston. A birder in the show talked about birds and their songs and their voice mechanisms inherent in them . He said these voice mechanisms in then were designed for certain functions. Who designed them? I believe the Creator God did. Every one has to answer this question for themselves.

A watch demands a watchmaker. A fine cake demands a baker or pastry chef. I believe a great first cause, who inhabits eternity and has life inherent is the starting point of all that is. I believe the great first cause is God. I don't believe that everything came from nothing. I don't believe that life came from lifeless matter. Where did matter come from in the first place?

You know, frizzyperm, you are right. I should believe what I
believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. I guess
that's what freedom is about.

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist, and that it
also explains much of the evidence used to prove evolution, but I
think we should stop arguing about beliefs and believe what we
want.

It's a bit hypocritical, but that's my conclusion.

I should believe what I believe, and you can believe what
you want to believe. - Luiji

While I agree in principle, I think we should accept
(rather than 'believe') the things which are self-evidently true. I
don't believe in evolution. I have
studied the evidence for it and it is a clear explanation of what
actually happened. I studied the evidence and then made a decision.
You, on the other hand, have a pre-held belief that you had
before you studied the evidence. You hold
a religious position, I hold a scientific one. You are
interested in The Rock of Ages. I am interested in The Age of
Rocks. :-)

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist
- Luiji

Sorry, but no, you can't. But you are welcome to
offer your reasons here and I will try to help you understand why
you are mistaken. Belief is not the same as fact. This thread is in
the science section, and scientifically speaking it is child's play
to disprove the biblical flood. While you may hold it as a
religious belief, you cannot claim it is scientifically provable,
because it isn't. And I can help you find the truth. If you are
actually interested in finding the truth.

I don't believe in evolution; however, I agree that each
individual must delve into the topic and make their own decision
based on what they find. Another must respect any free will
decision another individual makes. I hearken back to pastor
John MacArthur's statement that
evolutionary theory is summed up as this... (paraphrased)

"Nothing x No one = everything."

Doesn't seem logical to me.

I saw a program the other day called Bird Tales on PBS
Boston. A birder in the show talked about birds and their songs and
their voice mechanisms inherent in them . He said these voice
mechanisms in then were designed for certain functions.
Who designed them? I believe the Creator God did. Every one has to
answer this question for themselves.

A watch demands a watchmaker. A fine cake demands a baker or
pastry chef. I believe a great first cause, who inhabits eternity
and has life inherent is the starting point of all that is. I
believe the great first cause is God. I don't believe that
everything came from nothing. I don't believe
that life came from lifeless matter. Where did matter come from in
the first place?

Hi Portd. One thing I find a little frustrating about discussing
evolution is that those people who try to disprove it very often
use the arguments you have presented. You ask (paraphrasing) "How
did life originate? How did the universe originate?" While these
are interesting questions, they are completely unconnected to
evolution. Evolution does not attempt to explain 'everything' and
it does not attempt to answer the questions you offered.

A watch demands a watchmaker. A fine cake demands a baker
or pastry chef. - Portd

In other words, if it looks designed then it is designed.
This is a very human-centric view of the world. Because we know
that everything we make needs a maker, therefore, we conclude,
nature does aswell because it has the appearance of design. Well,
if you are right then the designer of nature is a very very poor
one. Because the 'design' we find in nature is haphazard, strange
and imperfect. And only the theory of Evolution provides a logical
explanation for these errors. While there are millions of examples
of blind, faulty 'design' in nature, one of the most beautiful is
the larangyeal nerve. Here is a 4 minute video which very simply
and very clearly shows that nature did not have an intelligent
designer.

You think that the design of nature is imperfect and strange. But I'm thinking, how on earth could such a magnificent design be made up from one amazing coincidence that happened billions of years ago?

Design doesn't ever get better. Give me one example of a recent new species that is better than the one it originated from. You can't, because life is only degenerating.

A thousand years ago, life was a lot better than it is now. Lizards lived so long they grew into dinosaurs. Men lived for hundred of years rather than a few decades.

My point is that it is impossible for nature to get better. It has been deteriorating.

Yet, look at the amazing things about the design of life. Even one simple study of the human body shows the complexity and perfectness of it. The placenta is one amazing organ of the body. So is the heart... wait a minute, so is the whole body. The way everything in the body connects with the rest of it is so amazing. It could never be the result of one strange coincidence when suddenly life began somehow.

You think that the design of nature is imperfect and strange.
But I'm thinking, how on earth could such a magnificent design be
made up from one amazing coincidence that happened billions of
years ago?

Design doesn't ever get better. Give me one example of a recent
new species that is better than the one it originated from. You
can't, because life is only degenerating.

A thousand years ago, life was a lot better than it is now.
Lizards lived so long they grew into dinosaurs. Men lived for
hundred of years rather than a few decades.

My point is that it is impossible for nature to get better. It
has been deteriorating.

Yet, look at the amazing things about the design of life. Even
one simple study of the human body shows the complexity and
perfectness of it. The placenta is one amazing organ of the body.
So is the heart... wait a minute, so is the whole body. The way
everything in the body connects with the rest of it is so amazing.
It could never be the result of one strange coincidence when
suddenly life began somehow.

Design doesn't get better. Give me one example of a recent
new species that is better than the one it originated from. You
can't, because life is only degenerating. - Luiji

I don't really understand what you mean by 'life is
degenerating'. As for better 'design', that's pretty easy. For
example, as foxes moved north, they evolved thicker fur coats to
protect them from the cold better and white fur to camouflage them
better.

You suggest that...

A thousand years ago, life was a lot better than it is now.
Lizards lived so long they grew into dinosaurs.

No. The Bible says they did, but the
evidence shows they did not. Bones and teeth of stone-age humans
shows the average life span was around
25.

Then you wrote something that
demonstrates you believe things with no
evidence...

Even one simple study of the human body shows the complexity
and perfectness of it. - Luiji

Luiji, one simple study of the
human body shows it's far from perfect. It contains many
imperfections... Our lower back and knees are not strong enough for
our upright position, we are vulnerable to a huge number of viruses
and bacteria, etc, etc. If we are perfect, why have we got
an appendix that does nothing except
occasionally explode, killing its owner? (check the link below for
more)

"Evolution does not attempt to explain 'everything' and it
does not attempt to answer the questions you offered."

Because it can't

Well exactly, Portd. Evolution doesn't
answer questions about big bang theory (how did the universe
originate?) because evolution is not concerned with cosmology.
And it does not explain abiogenesis (how did life on Earth
start?) because that is separate from evolutionary theory.
Likewise, evolution does not explain the relationship between
interest rates and spending; it does not explain how televisions
work; it doesn't explain why the sky is blue or why I always seem
to never be able to find a matching pair of socks.

Evolution explains the nature and diversity of life
on earth, both past and present. Nothing else. But,
it explains it with such reliable and extensive accuracy that, in
layman's terminology, it is a solid cast-iron fact.

Evolution may be an interesting facet of the science world. But as interesting as it may seem, there are so many unexplainable facts. The truth is that evolution is baseless since it cannot answer all our questions about life.

Seriously who or which scientist can tell us why this don't evolve today?, why don't today's ape (maybe ones in the zoo) become humans? Why do birds use instincts? How do they get their navigating compass? I can go on and on.

Saying that all things came by chance is like promoting a book and removing its Authour's name. Scientists the world over should or have been asking Theologians to given them more reasons to believe in creation or a Creator.

Scientists and engineers are learning different designs from the creations around them (fish, birds, etc.) and are designing beautiful and wonderful gadgets and machines with this knowledge. Is it the original creation that is not designed by the most powerful and intelligent Designer of all? (Think about it).

Looking at the things and beautiful people around you will confirm the fact that God the Almighty though not seen (like the wind) is the designer of them all. There is no excuse for not believing in a Creator.

Evolution is real no question about it. Perhaps we don't know everything about evolution, but evolution is real. And for all those who insist on interpreting the bible literally you should read 'The life of Jesus' from D. F. Strauss.

In response to #4: No one is saying that the literal words of Genesis match up with scientific theory. And while they don't align when taken literally, they're not really in competition, either--I no more "believe" in evolution than I "believe" that the earth revolves around the sun. I can appreciate the values and beauty inherent in an origin story for humanity that celebrates a divine origin and holy human gifts and explains the faults and pains born by us all. That doesn't mean I have to believe that, for example, the first woman was literally created from the surgically removed rib of a particular man.While in the past, various churches denounced Copernicus and Galileo as blasphemers and dismissed heliocentric models as false at best and evil at worst, I like to think that we've progressed past that. Instead, many people of faith who accept evolution as one of the basic tenets of biology believe that in the same way that Jesus taught people about metaphysical concepts like God's mercy and judgment through parables and analogies to things they could understand, Genesis uses metaphor, myth, and parable to teach a greater truth in non-literal terms.

You might want to check out Inherit the Wind--a fantastic book and a brilliant movie that shows the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial, where two profoundly intelligent and articulate Christian men argue about teaching evolution in schools. It's a complex issue, because it's so tied up with politics and religion, and the book and film treat it with dignity.

Of course it is. There is evidence such as in fossils and genetics and organism structure. Put it this way:

A million gajillion years ago... whales walked on land. They looked kinda like dogs. Anyway, we can tell this because whales have pelvic structures that are completely unnessessary because they swim underwater and dont walk. Isnt it soooo weird? That is proof.

Also the fact that a long time ago, giraffes had short necks and over thousands and thousands of years of the change in the gene pool, their necks got longer because of them stretching to reach leaves on top of trees.

"Evolution does not attempt to explain 'everything' and it
does not attempt to answer the questions you offered."

Because it can't

Did you watch the video about the giraffe's neck yet? I want to
know how Creationists explain anomalies like this one.

Why did 'The Intelligent Designer' (who we all know is 'The
Christian God' but you won't say so because you are being
'scientific') make such a surreal, ludicrous detour in the
giraffe's larangeal nerve?

This oddity is explained 100% perfectly with evolutionary theory
but makes no sense what-so-ever with Intelligent Design Theory.

Evolution is not fact! It is a theory that has no proof to back it. According to Evolutionists, there are two types of evolution; Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution refers to natural selection and adaptation within a species. Creationists have no problem with this because it is observable by all. However Macro-evolution refers to the events in which a species changes into another! This is has never been observed and never will be which proves the theory of evolution is flawed and improbable.

As for the fossil record, evolutionists and palaeontologists refer to the geological column. The geological column is a series of layers of rock containing fossils and sediment said to have been laid down over millions of years. Palaeontologists date these layers of rock by the fossils inside them and the fossils are dated by the rock! This is called circular reasoning and cannot support the theory. These creatures found in these layers were buried in mud by a global flood. The heavier sediments would naturally sink to the bottom and eventually you would have a series of layers with animals trapped inside.

Pelvic bones in whales are more important than you might think. This so called non-vital part of anatomy is an anchor for all the muscles in the whales tale so it able to swim. Scientists also say that the human tailbone is proof that we evolved from apes. They say the bone is non vital. If you were to remove that bone, certain bodily functions such as walking, excreting waste and reproducing would most certainly be near impossible. It is possible to live without limbs but also very inconvenient.

Evolution first occured when an asteroid hit our Earth. It is said that from this asteroid a bacteria came to Earth. And this bacteria evolved to one celled organisms and now we are here. ( The most intelligent organisms.)

Evolution is not fact! It is a theory that has no proof to
back it. According to Evolutionists, there are two types of
evolution; Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution
refers to natural selection and adaptation within a species.
Creationists have no problem with this because it is observable by
all. However Macro-evolution refers to the events in which a
species changes into another! This is has never been observed and
never will be which proves the theory of evolution is flawed and
improbable.

"Macro-evolution refers to the events in which a species
changes into another! This is has never been observed and never
will be which proves the theory of evolution is flawed and
improbable." by hepimpharvey

One thing that annoys me about creationist claims is that they
continue to propagate no matter how many times the evidence is
presented. Despite clear evidence, the same silly stories continue
to circulate.

We have observed speciaition. Many many times. Creationists are
playing with words. When they say 'no-one has
observed speciation' they mean that the
entire process has not been monitored from start to finish in a
lab. Well, duh! It takes hundreds or thousands of years. And then
this 'not observed' claim is fuzzed and presented as 'we have no
evidence for speciation'. This is a ridiculous claim. The evidence
for speciation is almost endless.

These are lists of a few hundred scientifically peer-reviewed
examples of speciation. There are thousands more. And they all
observe the same phenomena. Viz, given enough time isolated groups
of the same species diverge into separate species.

Perhaps creationists would like to present just
ONE peer-reviewed scientific paper
which details why this is impossible?

Science and Religion can be compatible if you look at it in the right way. For example. A scientist would say that the universe was created by The Big Bang. A religious person would say that it was created by God in seven days. An logical person would say that it was God, who created The Big Bang, and life went on from there.

The Benefits of a contemporary private education, and old fashioned religious parents.

Evolution first occured when an asteroid hit our Earth. It is
said that from this asteroid a bacteria came to Earth. And this
bacteria evolved to one celled organisms and now we are here. ( The
most intelligent organisms.)

It's nice to know that we used to be bacteria. Quite humbling,
really.

Science and Religion can be compatible if you look at it in the
right way. For example. A scientist would say that the universe was
created by The Big Bang. A religious person would say that it was
created by God in seven days. An logical person would say that it
was God, who created The Big Bang, and life went on from there.

The Benefits of a contemporary private education,
and old fashioned religious parents.

I don't mean this in a horrible way, but religion and scientific
theories aren't compatible. Evolution in so many ways goes against
Creation, that it would be an offense to God to make it compatible
with His Creation.
God said His Creation was good, and He said that 6 times in Genesis
1. This means we can't believe that animals have evolved to become
better, because Creation was already good.

As far as I'm concerned, it's easier believing there is a God
who created everything, rather than a Big Bang in which from
nothing there was something, which eventually evolved to be the
world we live in today. It is scientifically impossible for that to
happen.

Science and Religion can be compatible if you look at it in the
right way. For example. A scientist would say that the universe was
created by The Big Bang. A religious person would say that it was
created by God in seven days. An logical person would say that it
was God, who created The Big Bang, and life went on from there.

The Benefits of a contemporary private education,
and old fashioned religious parents.

I don't mean this in a horrible way, but religion and scientific
theories aren't compatible. Evolution in so many ways goes against
Creation, that it would be an offense to God to make it compatible
with His Creation.
God said His Creation was good, and He said that 6 times in Genesis
1. This means we can't believe that animals have evolved to become
better, because Creation was already good.

As far as I'm concerned, it's easier believing there is a God
who created everything, rather than a Big Bang in which from
nothing there was something, which eventually evolved to be the
world we live in today. It is scientifically impossible for that to
happen.

"...religion and scientific theories aren't compatible.
Evolution in so many ways goes against Creation, that it would be
an offense to God to make it compatible with His
Creation.
God said His Creation was good, and He said that 6 times in Genesis
1. This means we can't believe that animals have evolved to become
better, because Creation was already
good." by luiji

I completely agree with you that the theory of evolution
completely contradicts Genesis. So, we have
two explanations of how life on earth
developed and a maximum of one of them
can be true. They can't both be true.

So how can we decide which is true? Well, we can look at the
evidence and make a rational decision. You presented the 'evidence'
that the Bible states 6 times that God's creation is good. This is
your 'evidence' that we can't have evolved. But this presupposes
that the Bible is inerrant. You can't presuppose the Bible is
literally true and then expect any sense. You've put the cart in
front of the horse.

You must observe the evidence and use it to construct/check a
theory. You cannot presuppose a fixed theory and go looking for the
evidence which supports it.

Before 1860, all scientists exclusively used creationist theory,
they were all creationists. But as more and more evidence was
discovered and critically analysed by people who weren't using
pre-suppositions, a new, better theory was proposed which explained
the evidence more accurately.

In 1859, Darwin proposed a hypothesis which explained observable reality more accurately than Genesis. And with huge reluctance and opposition, scientists gradually accepted the evidence confirmed his ideas about evolution. Now, after 150 years, the evidence for evolution is over-whelming. It is undeniable to people who are prepared to consider it fairly. 99.99% of bio-scientists agree that we evolved and that the evidence is insurmountable.

But presuppositionalists cannot consider it. They cannot and will not examine the evidence because they have tobelieve that the Bible does not contain mistakes. Their model is fixed and unscientific. They insist that evolution must be wrong JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT IT TO BE. So they try to destroy it, but they can't because it's real.

Luigi, heads up, fella... REALITY FLATLY CONTRADICTS THE CLAIMS OF GENESIS. Sorry, but it does. Whether you like it or not, we evolved. There is unlimited evidence that is freely and easily available that proves it! Don't waste your life in denial. It would be a tragic waste. Study the evidence withoutpresuppositions and you will discover that the ancient mythological stories in Genesis are provably not real. Sorry.

Hi Luiji, I too am a Christian and I believe that evolution is not real. If you look in the bible and read Genesis you may actually notice that what evolutionists say actually does agree with the Bible in some ways, for example, when God said let there be light there could have been a huge bang and then there was light. It probably did not happen quietly. And also God probably did not make there be land, trees, animals, plants, and water quietly. It probably did make a big bang! How could it not? But, that does not mean that all that evolutionists say is true. Some of what evolutionists say is absolutly contrary to what we believe. What we do know is God did create this world even if some of what evolutionists say is true.

"One thing that annoys me about creationist claims is that
they continue to propagate no matter how many times the evidence is
presented. Despite clear evidence, the same silly stories continue
to circulate." By frizzyperm

Your provided evidence cannot support the claim that we
came from a primordial soup! It simply proves a stronger case for
adaptation. In the Bible, God did not say that
everything would reprouce after its species. If
that were the case, there would be little to no biodiversity. he
said that everything would reproduce after its own
kind. You cannot breed a cat and dog together
because it is impossible. However it is possible for a lion and a
tiger to breed because they are both felines. you can breed a dog
and a wolf because they are both canines. The reason the fruit
flies in the article laid survived at all in north america is
because a few were capable of laying their eggs in a regular apple
rather than a thorn apple. The one that were incapable of doing so
died out without reproducing. the result is fruit flies able to
reproduce in north america because natural selection did its work.
A set Kind of organism will not change into another, no matter how
much time you give it, or how much you want it to!

Also, in regards to the statement that religion and science cannot coincide, it actually can. certain theories, of course, will contradict God and his creation. however, God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, used science in his creation. He didn't create just a spiritual realm, he also created a physical one. one that must obey the laws of science!all the complexity of the biosphere, from the tiniest chlooplast in a plant cell to the way the perfect position the earth is in to sustain life, points to a creator! a magnificent and loving God!

Your provided evidence cannot support the claim that we came from a primordial soup!

Why should it support that!?!?!?! For the 100,000th time since I started on Enotes I am being forced to explain to a creationist that evolution does NOT explain how life began. That is not part of evolution's field. So, Hepimp, if you are so confident that you can disprove evolution, why can't you correctly identify a very basic overall premise for it? The theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain abiogenesis, that is a different subject and scientific field. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution!

And now I would like to turn the spotlight on creationist claim instead of always having to defend evolution. You said,

[God] said that everything would reproduce after its own kind.

OK, champ... define this 'kind' that you so confidently tell me walls in the processess of natural change. What is a 'kind' within which species may evolve? How can we define it? It is a creationist term that scientists don't use, I don't know what it is. So would you be so kind (ha-ha) and define 'kind' please?

kind

a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc.,of the same
nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common.

Dogs,
wolves, coyotes are of the same kind. Lynx, cougars, lions are of
the same kind. Canines, Bovines, felines and equines are 4 'kinds'
of animals.

In Genesis 1:24-25 it says: "And God said, “Let the land produce living
creaturesaccording to their kinds: the livestock, the
creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each
according to its kind.” And it was
so. 25 God made the wild animals according to
their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the
creatures that move along the ground according to their
kinds. And God saw that it was good."

"...evolution does NOT explain how life began. That is not
part of evolution's field...The theory of evolution makes no
attempt to explain abiogenesis, that is a different subject and
scientific field. The origin of life has nothing to do with
evolution!" -by frizzyperm

If evolution is completely unrelated to the way life
began, then who cares about
evolution!?

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another explanation before they even consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous! There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to rest...Hmm...

Evolution is in so many ways taking over beliefs. I don't
actually agree with it... I'm a creationist/Chrisian and don't
believe in it at all. Wondering what you think about this subject -
is it real or is it not?

I don't either, but most of my friends do, even though they are
Christians. This upsets me as it blatanlty goes against what the
Bible says. However, they are entitles to their own opinions...even
if I don't like them.

I believe in evolution. How else(logically) can you explain our
existence? We have a startling physical resemblance with monkeys
and Chimps. We have evolved from these creatures to establish
ourselves as the most intelligent and daring life form on Earth
till date. This is what science teaches.

"Startling physical resemblance"? Beyond opposable thumbs and
walking upright what is their? I do not mean this as a snide
remark, but am sincerely asking you what resemblence you see.

Are you saying that we should combine the Bible with the facts
of evolution, because that's not the way I see it.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven
days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate
from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there.

Also, we are told that God created the world that was already
mature. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not as children. Trees
weren't just little seeds or seedlings, but the earth was made
mature. This meant that the earth could have seemed billions of
years old, but was only just created. So it could seem that the
earth is billions of years old, but is only a few thousand.

God tells us in the Bible that He created the earth in seven
days, and that's what I believe. He also created humans seperate
from animals - the Bible makes the distinction there. Also, we
are told that God created the world that was already mature. Adam
and Eve were created as adults, not as children. - Luigi

And if you want to believe that then you have the freedom of
religion and can believe it. But, scientifically speaking, it is in
no sense real, true or accurate. Creationist attempts to deny
scientific evidence in order to preserve literal Biblical accuracy
are futile. It can't be done. It is scientifically provable
that

Adam and Eve never existed

There was no global flood

Humans are animals and evolved.

It doesn't matter what you 'believe'. What matters is, 'what
does the evidence show us?' And the evidence very clearly shows us
that the Bible is not a literally accurate scientific book.

Actually, it doesn't really matter what the evidence shows us if
the person that you're trying to prove something to won't believe
you, or react as if it is real evidence anyway.

For instance, if a lawyer presented a blood-stained knife with
the presiding judge's fingerprints on it, the judge wouldn't react
as if that evidence was ust shown to them.

You know, frizzyperm, you are right. I should believe what I
believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. I guess
that's what freedom is about.

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist, and that it
also explains much of the evidence used to prove evolution, but I
think we should stop arguing about beliefs and believe what we
want.

It's a bit hypocritical, but that's my conclusion.

I should believe what I believe, and you can believe what you
want to believe. - Luiji

While I agree in principle, I think we should accept (rather
than 'believe') the things which are self-evidently true. I don't
believe in evolution. I have studied the
evidence for it and it is a clear explanation of what actually
happened. I studied the evidence and then made a decision. You, on
the other hand, have a pre-held belief that you had
before you studied the evidence. You hold
a religious position, I hold a scientific one. You are
interested in The Rock of Ages. I am interested in The Age of
Rocks. :-)

I can argue and give proof that the flood did exist - Luiji

Sorry, but no, you can't. But you are welcome to offer your
reasons here and I will try to help you understand why you are
mistaken. Belief is not the same as fact. This thread is in the
science section, and scientifically speaking it is child's play to
disprove the biblical flood. While you may hold it as a religious
belief, you cannot claim it is scientifically provable, because it
isn't. And I can help you find the truth. If you are actually
interested in finding the truth.

You're one of those people who has an incessant need to continue
arguments, even when the opposing side is trying to peaceably reach
an agreement. This means that I have lost a great deal of respect
for your stance on such an issue. I feel it is a step down for me
to listen, or rather read, such a petty person's thoughts and
positions on controvercial matters. Please realize, tis is
constructive criticism; you could benefit from not being such a
malevolent scoundrel looking for arguments. I think it would
transfer into your life, and make people less annoyed at you.

I am a Christian, not by any forced religious doctrine, order, or practices. One day I looked outside the window of my kitchen and stood in awe for the first time of my life. The scene was ordinary as ever, blue skies, birds, beautiful temperature, trees blooming, the works...but that time was different. Something stirred inside me. Tha must be something else than Bing Bangs, fossils, chimps, Darwin, I said to myself. I rushed to the bookshelf and picked my only copy of anl old dusty Bible that was there for ages untouched and started reading. And Bang! I thank God for having created all of this for us to enjoy here and after. May God bless you all, and for those that don't believe, may the Lord give you wisdom.

You guys, picture for a second a print shop full of books, papers, documents with their pages completely blank and white. Then, a huge explosion of an ink bottle occurs, and all of sudden all the pages are completely full with words that make perfect sense! That's the Bing Bang. Can it be real? But for the sake of the toughest evolutionists I want to grant you the fact that maybe the words, after the explosion, are not grammaticaly correct and are not put in order, making no sense, so they need "evolution" in learning how to write and make stories. Can it still be real? Watch it, the print shop is still spotless, only books and paper are affected. Can it still make sense? God not only is the printer but also the author, that's the only and REASONABLE explanation.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't
scientists be looking for another explanation before they even
consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't
explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous!
There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look
at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and
say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as
complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and
error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly
debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more
than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to
rest...Hmm...

If evolution is completely unrelated to the way life
began, then who cares about
evolution!?... If the process in which life was
created is unknown, shouldn't scientists be looking for another
explanation before they even consider the way in which it
developed?

Hepimp. Abiogenesis is separate
from the theory of evolution. You seem to arguing against your own
prejudices, rather than me.

Let me try (again)... Evolution does
not attempt to provide an explanation for
the origin of life because that is not the remit of evolution. The
scientific study of the origin of life is called abiogensis and is
a different field. Abiogensis has plenty to say about the origin of
life, but it is not part of evolutionary
theory. I suspect that if you understood evolution, you would
understand why that is obvious.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't
scientists be looking for another explanation before they even
consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't
explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous!
There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look
at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and
say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as
complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and
error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly
debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more
than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to
rest...Hmm...

There has to be an intelligent God to design life... how
dare you say that something as complex as the human body was made
by chance and trial and error! - Hepimp

Mmm-hmm... the argument from design: because humans design
artificial things, then natural things must also have a
designer.'

There are problems with your argument.

1) If complex things need a designer then God needs one. Who
designed God? And who designed the designer of God? And so on
ad infinitum.

2) It doesn't eliminate evolution or confirm the Bible. The
designer could have designed life on Earth through evolution.

3) But, most importantly for us, life does not have evidence of
an intelligent designer. Life on Earth is ad hoc and error-strewn.
There are countless 'legacy' problems and jury-rigged solutions. A
designer would have been able to 'go back to the drawing board' and
start from scratch with each new "kind". But all life shows the
evidence of messy gradual adaptation rather than perfect, separate
lineages.

So far on this thread I've shown this video-link to a couple of
people who'd insisted on a designer. They never came back with an
answer. Your turn, Hepimp: if evolution doesn't happen, why
did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to
the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us
with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?

You guys, picture for a second a print shop full of books,
papers, documents with their pages completely blank and white.
Then, a huge explosion of an ink bottle occurs, and all of sudden
all the pages are completely full with words that make perfect
sense! That's the Bing Bang. Can it be real? But for the sake of
the toughest evolutionists I want to grant you the fact that maybe
the words, after the explosion, are not grammaticaly correct and
are not put in order, making no sense, so they need "evolution" in
learning how to write and make stories. Can it still be real? Watch
it, the print shop is still spotless, only books and paper are
affected. Can it still make sense? God not only is the printer but
also the author, that's the only and REASONABLE
explanation.

Dear Ninniclements, in you post you set up a strawman analogy
that characterised evolution as a totally random process. Then
you spent a happy time trashing this analogy as far-fetched and
ridiculous.

But, of course, evolution is not a random process. That is one
of the most basic facts about evolution. Natural selection is
not random. And yet creationists go on and on and on about how
evolution is 'completely random'. I long for the day when enotes
will provide me with a creationist who has a basic, working
understanding of modern evolutionary theory. But so far, the dozens
and dozens of creationsts that we have had here all display a
severe lack of knowledge concerning evolution.

I was once a creationist until I realized that God has given us two gifts: The world and our senses. I realized that evidence is the nexus of these two gifts—it is the place where the senses (sight, touch, hearing, etc) contact the world. For this reason I came to understand that the most sacred and precious thing in the world is Evidence---the exact place where God’s two great gifts to us meet. The theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in science because of the preponderance of evidence supporting it. Evolution, from this point of view, is a sacred theory. To turn one’s back on evolution is to turn one’s back on His gifts that make evidence possible in the first place. Evidence is a sacred thing deserving the highest reverence.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't
scientists be looking for another explanation before they even
consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't
explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous!
There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look
at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and
say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as
complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and
error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly
debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more
than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to
rest...Hmm...

There has to be an intelligent God to design life... how dare
you say that something as complex as the human body was made by
chance and trial and error! - Hepimp

Mmm-hmm... the argument from design: because humans design
artificial things, then natural things must also have a
designer.'

There are problems with your argument.

1) If complex things need a designer then God needs one. Who
designed God? And who designed the designer of God? And so on
ad infinitum.

2) It doesn't eliminate evolution or confirm the Bible. The
designer could have designed life on Earth through evolution.

3) But, most importantly for us, life does not have evidence of
an intelligent designer. Life on Earth is ad hoc and error-strewn.
There are countless 'legacy' problems and jury-rigged solutions. A
designer would have been able to 'go back to the drawing board' and
start from scratch with each new "kind". But all life shows the
evidence of messy gradual adaptation rather than perfect, separate
lineages.

So far on this thread I've shown this video-link to a couple of
people who'd insisted on a designer. They never came back with an
answer. Your turn, Hepimp: if evolution doesn't happen, why
did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to
the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us
with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?

Okay, frizzyperm, I've watched the video, but i don't understand
how it supports evolution. Just because the nerve goes on a
'detour' it doesn't mean it's an impurity.

What is the point in going straight to the voice box? A detour
doesn't matter - it's not doing the animal any harm.

You only think like that because people are stingy - no offense,
but they are. It's a fact of life. You consider it an impurity
because it takes up more room than it could. But God when creating
these marvellous creatures had all the resources He wanted. There
was no reason why He it would be wrong to make the nerve only
inches long.

And, this is only one example of an 'impurity', in which you say
God's design isn't perfect. But may I remind you, there are
countless examples of His amazing design in creation, so many that
if I were to give you some I wouldn't know where to start.

If the process in which life was created is unknown, shouldn't
scientists be looking for another explanation before they even
consider the way in which it developed? The big bang theory didn't
explain it! the whole idea of spontaneous generation is rediculous!
There has to be an intelligent God to design life. if you can look
at something as simple as a peice of paper with wrighting on it and
say it was designed, then how dare you say that something as
complex as the human body was made by chance and trial and
error!

If you can throw another flawed theory at me, I will gladly
debunk it for you!

ps. you haven't even considered my other posts containing more
than enough proof to put the theory of evolution to
rest...Hmm...

There has to be an intelligent God to design life... how dare
you say that something as complex as the human body was made by
chance and trial and error! - Hepimp

Mmm-hmm... the argument from design: because humans design
artificial things, then natural things must also have a
designer.'

There are problems with your argument.

1) If complex things need a designer then God needs one. Who
designed God? And who designed the designer of God? And so on
ad infinitum.

2) It doesn't eliminate evolution or confirm the Bible. The
designer could have designed life on Earth through evolution.

3) But, most importantly for us, life does not have evidence of
an intelligent designer. Life on Earth is ad hoc and error-strewn.
There are countless 'legacy' problems and jury-rigged solutions. A
designer would have been able to 'go back to the drawing board' and
start from scratch with each new "kind". But all life shows the
evidence of messy gradual adaptation rather than perfect, separate
lineages.

So far on this thread I've shown this video-link to a couple of
people who'd insisted on a designer. They never came back with an
answer. Your turn, Hepimp: if evolution doesn't happen, why
did your God make such a stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to
the giraffe's neck? Is The Intelligent Designer trying to trick us
with such obvious and clear examples of blind evolution?

Okay, frizzyperm, I've watched the video, but i don't understand
how it supports evolution. Just because the nerve goes on a
'detour' it doesn't mean it's an impurity.

What is the point in going straight to the voice box? A detour
doesn't matter - it's not doing the animal any harm.

You only think like that because people are stingy - no offense,
but they are. It's a fact of life. You consider it an impurity
because it takes up more room than it could. But God when creating
these marvellous creatures had all the resources He wanted. There
was no reason why He it would be wrong to make the nerve only
inches long.

And, this is only one example of an 'impurity', in which you say
God's design isn't perfect. But may I remind you, there are
countless examples of His amazing design in creation, so many that
if I were to give you some I wouldn't know where to start.

Luigi, life is a constant struggle of life and death. And nature
is extremely stingy. The most efficient animals survive. Those who
waste resources die.

Just saying, 'the detour doesn't matter' misses the point
entirely. The looping nerve conforms 100% to evolutionary theory.
It is an inelegant semi-solution to an inherited design problem.
It is what we would expect to find, if evolution is
true. Why would an intelligent designer design
an inefficient solution to a simple problem when efficiency is the
number one goal of biological processes? He could have taken the
direct route. If evolution is wrong and intelligent design is true,
why does nature contain 'designs' which confirm
evolutionary theory and contradict intelligent design
theory? Saying, "because God felt like it" is
not a satisfactory scientific answer.

Luigi, if that looping nerve didn't make you examine your
beliefs in Intelligent Design, then you have not considered it.
Life on Earth doesn't appear to be well designed, it appears to be
adapted.

I know you can show me lots of examples of beautiful elegant
'design', but evolution can explain them.

However, I can show you lots of examples of 'designs' which
contain mistakes due to legacy problems, and intelligent
design theory can't explain them.

Your theory does not match our observations from
nature. I just showed you proof of that. Your
theory appears to be wrong.

you state that 'life is a constant struggle of life and death. And nature is extremely stingy.' Sure, that's nature. But God isn't. God is perfect. Actually, you're right that 'God felt like it' isn't a very good answer. But it's all I can give you, because God is so much more superior than us human beings, that we cannot understand Him or His wisdom.

You furthermore ask, "why does nature contain designs which confirm evolutionary theory and contradict intelligent design theory?" Firstly, I'd like to say that you haven't given us sufficient proof that there isn't a perfect designer. Secondly, I'd like to say that evolutionary theory does not conform to the designs in nature. Why, may I ask, do Eskimos have to make their own fur coats, rather than grow one? If evolution were true, this might be quite normal. Why are humans so similar to one another, even though they live in such different environments? Compare us western folk to the impoverised people in the third-world countries. We are so alike, it's hard to believe evolution exists. You see, you can show us figures and 'facts' from 'millions of years ago' that 'confirm' evolution, but there is no evidence of evolution going on right now. Lions today are the same as lions a few hundred years ago, as are tigers and humans, and thousands of other species.

you state that 'life is a constant struggle of life and death.
And nature is extremely stingy.' Sure, that's nature. But God
isn't. God is perfect. Actually, you're right that 'God felt like
it' isn't a very good answer. But it's all I can give you, because
God is so much more superior than us human beings, that we cannot
understand Him or His wisdom.

You furthermore ask, "why does nature contain designs which
confirm evolutionary theory and contradict intelligent design
theory?" Firstly, I'd like to say that you haven't given us
sufficient proof that there isn't a perfect designer. Secondly, I'd
like to say that evolutionary theory does not conform to the
designs in nature. Why, may I ask, do Eskimos have to make their
own fur coats, rather than grow one? If evolution were true, this
might be quite normal. Why are humans so similar to one another,
even though they live in such different environments? Compare us
western folk to the impoverised people in the third-world
countries. We are so alike, it's hard to believe evolution exists.
You see, you can show us figures and 'facts' from 'millions of
years ago' that 'confirm' evolution, but there is no evidence of
evolution going on right now. Lions today are the same as lions a
few hundred years ago, as are tigers and humans, and thousands of
other species.

"You're right that 'God felt like it' isn't a
very good answer. But it's all I can give you..." Luigi

Fine, so you're ideas are religious conjecture and not
science. 'God felt like it' is an unfalsifiable statement.
In science, claims must be directly testable and disprovable. It's
possible to disprove evolution... find something 'irreducibly
complex' or a fossil that doesn't conform to evolutionary theory
and Bingo! you've disproved it.

We can't disprove 'God did it' (and you can't
prove it either.) If you need to insert 'God did it, just
because...' into your theory, it gets rejected because it's
scientifically meaningless.

Why, may I ask, do Eskimos have to make their own
fur coats, rather than grow one? - Luigi

Why grow one when you can make one? Seriously, think
about it. As people migrated north they kept warm by wearing the
furs of other animals. So, there was no evolutionary pressure to
select for furry people, because they were already 'furry'. OK, it
was reindeer fur or rabbit fur or whatever, but Evolution needs a
survival filter to produce natural selection. Evolution didn't
select the hairier Eskimos because the non-hairy Eskimos weren't
selectively dying of cold. Eskimos took an evolutionary short cut
(cos they're intelligent and can consciously manipulate their
environment.) They took advantage of the natural selection
processes of rabbits and reindeer.

"I'd like to say that you haven't given us sufficient proof that there isn't a perfect designer. - Luigi

I'm reluctant to move on from the 'giraffe's neck nerve' just yet because I feel you jumped over the problem by saying 'that's not enough proof'. Well, it is evidence of adaptive evolution and it refutes Intelligent Design. You can't just jump over it. It shatters your theory, you need to account for it.

And it is not an isolated example. One of the biggest problems with the theory of an intelligent designer is the problem of inherited design flaws. The giraffe's neck is a wonderful, clear example of legacy and adaptation, but there are countless more. It is extensive throughout the entire living world. The 'designer' of life was blind and limited, not intelligent and free.

This link shows just some of the mistakes in human biology, (pleeease watch part two as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I

So I'll ask you to consider it again, why does much of Life on Earth contain the evidence of the limitations of the adaptive process. Why does the 'design' of Life on Earth conform to the messy Theory of Evolution, but not to the perfect theory of Intelligent Design?

(and I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that I am enjoying our discussion very much and I hold you in high regard. Your answers are very thought-provoking and I trust we remain on good terms. :-)

obviously not! you may get a raddish and a cabbage that can
breed and produce offsping that can also breed, but this isn't
evolution. you can't breed a lion and a tiger or a horse and a
donkey, and you will get sterile offspring (cannot breed). God made
these animals so that they were able to breed with each other so
that biodiversity would come into the picture. Biodiversity
means diversity among and within plant and animal species in an environment. thats
what makes his creation so beautiful.

"if evolution doesn't happen, why did your God make such a
stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to the giraffe's neck? Is The
Intelligent Designer trying to trick us with such obvious and clear
examples of blind evolution?"- frizzyperm

I see nothing stupid about the giraffe's neck! It looks to
me that the nerve there was put there purposefully! maybe the
length is necessary! I don't know! I'M NOT GOD! I don't have all
the answers and I admit that! all I know is that with out that
nerve the animal would be voiceless. The nerve is not necessarily
proof of an imperfection.

Imperfections in creation did not come because God was Lazy or
wasn't thinking. Imperfections came from sin! Mutations and
diseases never would have come into His perfect world if Man hadn't
fallen.

Also the belief that God created the world and then allowed evolution to do it s work is called evolutionary creationism or Deism. Deism is not a viable answer to creation because this suggests that God doesn't want a relationship with us and just wants to see the world fall into chaos. The world nearly has fallen to chaos, but that is only because God gave us choice or free will. God wants a relationship with all of us! but because of free will some have chosen they don't want anything to do with God. God even loves us so much that he was willing to send Jesus Christ to save us from eternal damnation. he made it so easy for us to be saved! All we have to do is choose him.

Frizzyperm you said:

"I long for the day when enotes will provide me with a creationist who has a basic, working understanding of modern evolutionary theory." - frizzyperm

please understand I do have a good grasp of the theory of evolution and "the way it works" and I have an even better grasp of Christianity and creationism. please do not disregard that fact. Because I have seen a fair amount of reasoning for both sides of the argument, I am able to discern which side is more logical and which is not. I have obviously chosen Christianity and that is not because of the way I was raised. The proof is there! you just need to know how to look at it.

obviously not! you may get a raddish and a cabbage that can
breed and produce offsping that can also breed, but this isn't
evolution. you can't breed a lion and a tiger or a horse and a
donkey, and you will get sterile offspring (cannot breed). God made
these animals so that they were able to breed with each other so
that biodiversity would come into the picture. Biodiversity
means diversity among and within plant and animal species in an
environment. thats what makes his creation so beautiful.

"if evolution doesn't happen, why did your God make such a
stupid and 'pro-evolutionary' design to the giraffe's neck? Is The
Intelligent Designer trying to trick us with such obvious and clear
examples of blind evolution?"- frizzyperm

I see nothing stupid about the giraffe's neck! It looks to me
that the nerve there was put there purposefully! maybe the length
is necessary! I don't know! I'M NOT GOD! I don't have all the
answers and I admit that! all I know is that with out that nerve
the animal would be voiceless. The nerve is not necessarily proof
of an imperfection.

Imperfections in creation did not come because God was Lazy or
wasn't thinking. Imperfections came from sin! Mutations and
diseases never would have come into His perfect world if Man hadn't
fallen.

cont...

I see nothing stupid about the giraffe's neck! It looks to me
that the nerve there was put there purposefully! maybe the length
is necessary! I don't know! I'M NOT GOD! - Hepimp

I'm not God either, but I know the nerve's extra length is not a
benefit. In fish (where this nerve evolved) we see that it
goes directly from A to B. There is no detour. But fish have no
necks. Then, as evolution developed necks, the destination for the
nerve moves.... and moves... and moves.

But evolution's elongation of the neck ignored the fact that the
nerve was trapped, because the original nerve's route went
behind other structures that were not
elongating. Thus trapped, the nerve simply got longer and longer
and longer. The nerve now goes from A to X to B. And in the Giraffe
it is a pathetic comedy detour.

A designer could have 'cut' the nerve and repositioned it.

Evolution couldn't do that.

IF you understand the theory of
evolution then this nerve rocks your world's foundations. Because
THAT LOOPING NERVE IS INSIDE YOU, and
every other land-dwelling vertebrate on
this planet. It is a cast-iron demonstration of adaptation.

The laryngeal nerve matches the theory of
evolution exactly and evolution explains it perfectly.

The laryngeal nerve contradicts your theory
totally and you have nothing to offer but non-scientific fluff
about beauty and God and sin.

"I'd like to say that you haven't given us sufficient proof that
there isn't a perfect designer. - Luigi

I'm reluctant to move on from the 'giraffe's neck nerve' just
yet because I feel you jumped over the problem by saying 'that's
not enough proof'. Well, it is evidence of adaptive evolution and
it refutes Intelligent Design. You can't just jump over it. It
shatters your theory, you need to account for it.

And it is not an isolated example. One of the biggest problems
with the theory of an intelligent designer is the problem of
inherited design flaws. The giraffe's neck is a wonderful, clear
example of legacy and adaptation, but there are countless more. It
is extensive throughout the entire living world. The 'designer' of
life was blind and limited, not intelligent and free.

This link shows just some of the mistakes in human biology,
(pleeease watch part two as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I

So I'll ask you to consider it again, why does much of Life on
Earth contain the evidence of the limitations of the adaptive
process. Why does the 'design' of Life on Earth conform to the
messy Theory of Evolution, but not to the perfect theory of
Intelligent Design?

(and I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that I am
enjoying our discussion very much and I hold you in high regard.
Your answers are very thought-provoking and I trust we remain on
good terms. :-)

I know it's quite a bit late, but I too am thankful that we're
still respecting eachother. I know it seems like we hate eachother,
but I do hold you in quite a bit of respect.

Here is my opinion, taught to me by my religion teacher in 8th grade, who was a deacon at the time, and is now a priest. The bible is not meant to be taken literally, rather it is the spirit of the law that is important, i.e. we dont kill people for stealing bread from the temple anymore, but rather we learn we should not steal. Using this logic we can agree God did not create the earth and all life in seven days in a specifically outlined process, but rather he did created the universe. Most promiment religious leader, ie bishops, cardinals, priests, agree the bible is not a literal document.

cont... Furthermore, one of the most important beliefs of God is free will, that God does not control any and every moment in our lives and that is why evil exists. Thus if God created all the many galaxies, and life on earth began in some which way (something evolution does not attempt to explain, whole different beast) than i think it is catholically acceptable to believe it slowly evolved in the diverse miracle it is today, with or without God's guidance depending on your belief, which again evolution does not attempt to explain. I believe God did create all life, but he did it through evolution and through amino acids at the beginning of earth's 4.54 billion year life-span. Just because it did not happen exactly the way the bible outlined it doesnt mean god was responsible, he just needed a way of logically portraying the information, and in this way religion and science are compatible

Re. #84 and #85. You say that this is your opinion taught to you by your religion teacher when you were in the eighth grade. No doubt you had other religious teachings when you were even younger, that is, when your mind was immature and you believed what older people told you. What you are expressing here is not exactly your opinion but your religion teacher's opinion. If children can be indoctrinated with such beliefs when they are very young, it is difficult if not impossible for them to think any other way when they become mature. I believe that most fundamentalists and creationists hold the views they hold because they were taught a whole set of fantastic and totally unsubstantiated beliefs when they were children. Your religion teacher probably had a comparable indoctrination when he was a child. If these concepts were not impressed on small children, they would most likely die out within a short time, because a mature adult cannot accept such notions as an invisible man who lives up in the sky and watches over everything.

Re. #84 and #85. You say that this is your opinion taught to you
by your religion teacher when you were in the eighth grade. No
doubt you had other religious teachings when you were even younger,
that is, when your mind was immature and you believed what older
people told you. What you are expressing here is not exactly your
opinion but your religion teacher's opinion. If children can be
indoctrinated with such beliefs when they are very young, it is
difficult if not impossible for them to think any other way when
they become mature. I believe that most fundamentalists and
creationists hold the views they hold because they were taught a
whole set of fantastic and totally unsubstantiated beliefs when
they were children. Your religion teacher probably had a comparable
indoctrination when he was a child. If these concepts were not
impressed on small children, they would most likely die out within
a short time, because a mature adult cannot accept such notions as
an invisible man who lives up in the sky and watches over
everything.

To be honest, I can believe in "an invisible man who lives up in
the sky and watches over everything" better than I can believe that
fact that out of nothing came the wonderful design of creation
today.

Here is my opinion, taught to me by my religion teacher in 8th
grade, who was a deacon at the time, and is now a priest. The
bible is not meant to be taken literally, rather it is the spirit
of the law that is important, i.e. we dont kill people for stealing
bread from the temple anymore, but rather we learn we should not
steal. Using this logic we can agree God did not create the earth
and all life in seven days in a specifically outlined process, but
rather he did created the universe. Most promiment religious
leader, ie bishops, cardinals, priests, agree the bible is not a
literal document.

cont...

Firstly, I'd like to say that just because they're priests,
they're haven't got the complete authority that God has. And
anyway, just because they're leaders, it doesn't mean they're
right. There are many examples in the Bible of well regarded
leaders who turn out wrong, and bring many others to destruction
with them. Think for example of the Pharisees, or King Solomon.

Secondly, I'd like to say that if the Bible hasn't got the
complete authority, we can't believe anything the Bible says - I
mean, what do we take literally, and what to we disregard? We
probably disregard the things which we don't like to hear, like
punishment for doing wrong, and regard the things we like - for
example that God is love and He died for our sins.

The Bible is supposed to be taken literally, although it is true
that some things are irrelevant for us today. Think, for example,
of the ceremonial laws, the laws about the sacrifices etc. These
laws have been fulfilled, and are therefore irrelevant for us
today.

Here is my opinion, taught to me by my religion teacher in 8th
grade, who was a deacon at the time, and is now a priest. The
bible is not meant to be taken literally, rather it is the spirit
of the law that is important, i.e. we dont kill people for stealing
bread from the temple anymore, but rather we learn we should not
steal. Using this logic we can agree God did not create the earth
and all life in seven days in a specifically outlined process, but
rather he did created the universe. Most promiment religious
leader, ie bishops, cardinals, priests, agree the bible is not a
literal document.

cont...

Firstly, I'd like to say that just because they're priests,
they're haven't got the complete authority that God has. And
anyway, just because they're leaders, it doesn't mean they're
right. There are many examples in the Bible of well regarded
leaders who turn out wrong, and bring many others to destruction
with them. Think for example of the Pharisees, or King Solomon.

Secondly, I'd like to say that if the Bible hasn't got the
complete authority, we can't believe anything the Bible says - I
mean, what do we take literally, and what to we disregard? We
probably disregard the things which we don't like to hear, like
punishment for doing wrong, and regard the things we like - for
example that God is love and He died for our sins.

The Bible is supposed to be taken literally, although it is true
that some things are irrelevant for us today. Think, for example,
of the ceremonial laws, the laws about the sacrifices etc. These
laws have been fulfilled, and are therefore irrelevant for us
today.

The Bible is supposed to be taken literally, although it
is true that some things are irrelevant for us today. -
Luiji

I don't want to be rude, Luiji, but what you wrote is such
an incredible display of unconscious flip-flopping that it
left me gaping at the screen and scratching my head.

a) You state that the The Bible is clearly a perfect
document and must be taken 100% literally.

b) Then, in the same sentence,
you chuck out a whole chunk of it as 'irrelevant for us
today'.

How do you know which bits to chuck out, Luiji? The
bits you don't like? The bits that are barbaric? The bits that are
wrong? It's GOD'S WORD! Show me in the Bible where it says parts of
it were not true for all time? As a fundamentalist, you don't have
the right to disregard the bits you don't like! But in
just one sentence you admonish
moderates (dirtydebater5151) for not believing
the Bible is 100% literally true and then admit that you ignore
lots of it.

I think you're a pretty smart kid. I suspect that in a few years
you'll become aware of the excruciating, one-eyed double-think that
is needed to be a modern fundamentalist and you'll realise the
Bible cannot possibly be word-for-word true. Your position, both
scientifically and religiously is unsustainable and your
intellectual curiosity will eventually mine through the bedrock and
expose its totally hollow interior. You're too smart to be a
fundamentalist. Sorry. ;-)

I can believe in "an invisible man who lives up in the sky and watches over everything" better than I can believe that fact that out of nothing came the wonderful design of creation today. - Luiji

Again, I would point out to you that there is zero evidence that the 'invisible man in the sky' created everything, but lots of evidence that life evolved. In order to sustain what you want to believe you are forced to blind yourself to some very clear and simple facts. Viz: You are a primate who exclusively believes an extremely outdated and error-ridden book for which there is no supporting evidence.

(And I agree with Chicagogirl, you're too bright to believe these nursery stories about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark for much longer. You used to believe in Santa Claus too, remember?)

In reply to 86 first off I believe fully all modern sciences and am a chemist, not a creationist, I think you know that just making it clear, second aren't all opinions contributed from outside sources, an opinions it's the acceptance or rejection or a taught principle not the self formation of an idea, which is basically impossible? However I do agree with you that fundamentalists hold on to immature beliefs. There is no feasible way to deny the exist of evolution and modern sciences that conflict with outdated religious teachings.

Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Butterflies are not transformed by successive slight modifications from caterpillars, or from any evolutionary ancestor. Neither are any of their complex organs.

When a butterfly egg hatches, a caterpillar steps out, eats, grows, and then builds a little house around itself where it passes into the pupal stage. Inside the leather-like shell of the pupa, or larva, the caterpillar dissolves.

Everything that distinguished him as a caterpillar, melts down to form a thick liquid. Everything except his heart becomes homogenized goo.

Compare the organs that crawled in to become the pupa with those of the butterfly that flew out:

CARTERPILLAR ORGANS BUTTERFLY ORGANS

12 legs 6 legs

13-segment body 10-segment body

6 simple eyes 2 compound, 2 simple eyes

No sex organs Sex organs

Chewing jaws Coiled sucking tube

0 wings 2 pair of wings

All these butterfly organs formed from goo! None formed from slight modifications to previous organs! Darwin struck out!

Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex
organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down.”

Butterflies are not transformed by successive
slight modifications from caterpillars, or from any evolutionary
ancestor. Neither are any of their complex organs.

When a butterfly egg
hatches, a caterpillar steps out, eats, grows, and then builds a
little house around itself where it passes into the pupal stage.
Inside the leather-like shell of the pupa, or larva, the
caterpillar dissolves.

Everything that distinguished him as a caterpillar, melts down
to form a thick liquid. Everything except his heart becomes
homogenized goo.

Compare the organs that crawled in to become the pupa with those
of the butterfly that flew out:

CARTERPILLAR ORGANS BUTTERFLY
ORGANS

12 legs
6 legs

13-segment body
10-segment body

6 simple eyes
2 compound, 2 simple eyes

No sex organs
Sex organs

Chewing jaws
Coiled sucking tube

0 wings
2 pair of
wings

All these butterfly organs formed from goo! None formed from
slight modifications to previous organs! Darwin struck out!

Read Thomas Heinze’s book The Vanishing Proofs of
Evolution.

It's illuminating!

Well, Ninnic, I'll give you credit for presenting a creationist
argument that I've never heard before, which makes a change. :-)

Butterflies have two life-stages and they are achieved by the
collapse and sublimation of the caterpillar followed by the
construction of a butterfly in the intermediate, pupal phase. Think
of it like a second 'egg' phase.

You seem to be suggesting that, if evolution is true, the pupal
stage of a butterfly's life-cycle should be a sped-up 'movie' of a
caterpillar evolving directly into a butterfly. On re-reading your
post I'm not really sure why you think that, to be honest.

You said (or, to be more accurate, Ced+Ped ;-),

All these butterfly organs formed from goo! None formed
from slight modifications to previous organs! Darwin struck
out!

After giving us the facts about the pupal stage, you merely
state that the caterpillar didn't change directly into a butterfly
so... evolution is wrong. But you didn't explain why you
think this shows evolution is wrong.

I have a couple of questions...

Why, according to your understanding of evolution, must the
caterpillar modify itself directly into a butterfly?

Why do you think evolution could not have evolved the
intermediate pupal stage?

Well, Frizzyperm, I am glad I have stimulated your interests in the eternal battle between evolution and creation but being Italian I am not sure what you mean by Ced+Ped. Besides, I find baffling sometimes to follow all the posts when containing, I suppose, typical American expressions. But one thing I understood: in your frenzy to defend your views you overlooked Darwin's statement, right at the beginning of my post, which is very important for the credibility of the evolution theory. And besides, it gives the answer to both your questions you asked me. I'll explain: Darwin thought natural selection had lifted all plants and animals up from a single cell by eliminating the less fit and keeping the more fit alive. What is the least fit substance you can think of? Thick liquid? How can such an intermediate stage fit Darwin's words? How can it be explaied that new organs require coordinated changes? From a voracious caterpillar to thick liquid to a wonderful butterfly that knows exactly where to fly for thousand miles to the spot, sometimes to the very tree, where its ancestors spent the last winter? Come on, guys!

The idea of evolution is a fundemental idea. I agree that i'm not sure about monkeys turning into homo-sapiens over a long period of time, but evolution does occur. In our time we are not as trubled as people such as cavemen once were. So the troubled cave men who had a hard life had to find a way to adjust to their surroundings. Their adjustments evolved in the comming generations. For example, Cavemen had bushy and thick eyebrows, large eyebrows actually increase your vision and senses. Cavemen used these characteristics to hunt large animals. But over time humans did not need to hunt like them. So over the next generations humans lost these bushy Eye-brows.

In our generations, we have almost everything we need to survive, So, there are little things we have to adjust to. Which means from now there will be little evolution.

Also, the idea of evolution is fundemental, trying to defy them would trouble many laws in science, and make life more confusing.

Well, Frizzyperm, I am glad I have stimulated your interests in
the eternal battle between evolution and creation but being Italian
I am not sure what you mean by Ced+Ped. Besides,
I find baffling sometimes to follow all the posts when containing,
I suppose, typical American expressions. But one thing I
understood: in your frenzy to defend your views you overlooked
Darwin's statement, right at the beginning of my post, which is
very important for the credibility of the evolution theory. And
besides, it gives the answer to both your questions you asked me.
I'll explain: Darwin thought natural selection had
lifted all plants and animals up from a single cell by
eliminating the less fit and keeping the more fit
alive. What is the least fit substance you can think of?
Thick liquid? How can such an intermediate stage fit Darwin's
words? How can it be explaied that new organs require coordinated
changes? From a voracious caterpillar to thick liquid to a
wonderful butterfly that knows exactly where to fly for thousand
miles to the spot, sometimes to the very tree, where its ancestors
spent the last winter? Come on, guys!

Was my reply 'frenzied'? I wouldn't say so. The quote from On
The Origin did not escape my notice, it is the most often quoted
section, (except for, perhaps, the famous 'tangled bank' final
paragraph) and I understand its implications. It is related to
the idea of irreducible complexity.

Your post is an 'argument from incredulity' You ask a series of
questions rather than explanations.

What is the least fit substance you can think of? Thick
liquid? How can such an intermediate stage fit Darwin's
words?

Well, you are right that the pupal stage is a vulnerable time
for the organism. Which is why intense natural selection has
ensured better and better camouflage techniques to increase the
chances of survival. As predators ate lots of those pupae that were
easy to find, the surviving pupae rapidly evolved better and better
resemblance to dead leaves or bird droppings, or chose more and
more cunning hiding places.

But, as vulnerable as this stage is, it is clearly worth
the risk to the butterflies' survival as a group, because they're
not extinct. And that's true whether evolution is true or not.
But to be honest, we are circling the heart of the
matter.

So, given Darwin's quote, why could the intermediate stage not
have developed through the processes of evolution? You said it
sounds absurd to you, but you haven't identified the reason that it
is irreducibly complex.

I am a Christian. I believe that God created the universe. However, a denial of a scientific thing like evolution is the same as the denial of helio-centrism. Evolution is a natural process that had to occur and is self-evident. It is as self-evident as God's existence, which is a truth.

For all those who want to learn more about about how the life started and about Charles Darwin and evolution I would recomend the following documentaries: First Life, Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life. If after this you still believe God litteraly created world in 7 days, then there are no point in further discussion.

If your gonna take this on with God, then it's all up to you if you have faith in God or not or you're the type of person who'd rather seek for a scientific explanation as well as evidence. Evidence about evolution is everywhere around you. Ever thought about how everything we have is a coincidence? Why we have ears for hearing, eyes for seeing? How everything seems to be in balance (except for the fact that we are disrupting it). How everything seems to be connected with each other?

A thing to remember also is that evolution is a theory, not a fact, as a matter of fact. We need solid proof. Maybe one day when a "working" time machine will be invented, then that's all we need to get solid proof.

I people believe in God, then you can't argue because it's their belief and their faith. Just stick with your own belief, don't force people to believe in something.

Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, number theory, probability theory, quantum theory, computational complexity theory, theory of integration, cell theory along with theory of evolution - all just theories, not facts.

Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, number theory,
probability theory, quantum theory, computational complexity
theory, theory of integration, cell theory along with theory of
evolution - all just theories, not facts.

tiburtius,

A theory does NOT mean that is not true, and
that it is only a guess and an observation - that's not how it is
used in Science at all. Theory means the data
presenteded is still open for expansion,
so if new evidence was presented to show that trilobites had two
more proteins on their exoskeletons, that would be added to the
data. That's all 'theory' means in Science, that it is still open
to more information (which is pretty much everything in
Science).

If you still aren't convienced, did you know electricity is a
theory? I think we know how to harness and use electricity pretty
well, and it's accepted as a true thing in society (because it's
silly to say it doesn't exist when we clearly use it). Evolution is
also a theory, but there is clear evidene for it - just to go a
museum and ask a evolution expert to explain everything to you and
show you concrete evidence - bones, fossils, fragments, you name
it!

Theory of gravity, theory of relativity, number theory,
probability theory, quantum theory, computational complexity
theory, theory of integration, cell theory along with theory of
evolution - all just theories, not facts.

tiburtius,

A theory does NOT mean that is not true, and
that it is only a guess and an observation - that's not how it is
used in Science at all. Theory means the data
presenteded is still open for expansion,
so if new evidence was presented to show that trilobites had two
more proteins on their exoskeletons, that would be added to the
data. That's all 'theory' means in Science, that it is still open
to more information (which is pretty much everything in
Science).

If you still aren't convienced, did you know electricity is a
theory? I think we know how to harness and use electricity pretty
well, and it's accepted as a true thing in society (because it's
silly to say it doesn't exist when we clearly use it). Evolution is
also a theory, but there is clear evidene for it - just to go a
museum and ask a evolution expert to explain everything to you and
show you concrete evidence - bones, fossils, fragments, you name
it!

My post was supposed to be sarcastic, I actually agree with you.
See post #107.

If I tell you what i truly believe the origin of man is, then
you wouldn't believe me and you would criticise me. But right now
I'm disputing whether evolution is real or not, and not whether my
views are right and wrong...

Anyway, if humans evolved from chimpanzees, why do chimpanzees
still exist? Shouldn't they have all evolved to become humans? And
if some didn't, wouldn't they have just died off straight away...
after all, you all believe in the 'survival of the fittest'...

And, can you please make up your mind... it seems evolution
can't make up its mind about what we evolved from... i've heard
that we've evolved from apes, chimpanzees, monkeys, and totally
unrelated animals like bacteria...

Darwin's book makes difficult reading. The best book on evolution is a much more recent book by Richard Dawkins titledThe Selfish Gene. He writes beautiful English. He explains how the earliest life forms originated and how they have evolved. There were life forms in existence even before one-celled creatures. Cell walls were an evolutionary development for survival. I believe he says that life originated out of chemicals about three-and-a-half billion years ago. I have noted that people who are the most strongly opposed to the theory of evolution typically refuse to read about it. They don't even have to read about it. There are many documentaries about evolution available on DVDs, including documentaries and docu-dramas about Charles Darwin.